Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The .ing top-level domain

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 333 posts

Re: The .ing top-level domain

#161

Post by Wowfunhappy »

layer8 wrote: post #157
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #156

...if we're going to keep doing this, why even have top level domains anymore? How do they improve UX? Writing "draw.com" makes it clear you're referring to a (commercial) website. But "draw.ing"? Just drop the stupid dot: "drawing".

Every new TLD is a new opportunity for making money, and that’s why they won’t be going away anytime soon.

But making websites harder to find also costs money. "Was it 'draw.ing', 'drawi.ng', or just 'draw.com'? Screw it I'm using Powerpoint."

Although I suppose making websites harder to find would increase Google searches...

Re: The .ing top-level domain

#165

Post by Const-me »

postalrat wrote: post #154
gnu8 wrote: post #10

The DNS is serious internet infrastructure, not your play toy. The practice of selling TLDs to every two bit dotcom was a mistake and needs to end.

Whats the problem? Are TLDs running out?

I believe the main problem is lack of competition.

When a customer registers geographical domains, or old school domains like com / net, they can migrate to any other registrar they wish. This option guarantees reasonable prices for customers, even in the very long run.

When a customer registers their domain under TLDs like hot / deals / express they can’t move away unless they’re fine losing their domain name as the result. Most of these TLDs are owned by for-profit companies. IMO, this lack of competition pretty much guarantees the prices will eventually go way higher to extract more profit for these companies.

A while ago, people faced a similar problem with mobile telephone numbers. Many countries have solved the issue with legal measures, they force mobile operators to allow users to migrate to competing operators while keeping their old phone number. Until we have laws forcing internet domain names portability (similar to phone numbers portability), I personally plan to stay away from these new top-level domains.

Re: The .ing top-level domain

#166

Post by kirse »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #156

...if we're going to keep doing this, why even have top level domains anymore? How do they improve UX? Writing "draw.com" makes it clear you're referring to a (commercial) website. But "draw.ing"? Just drop the stupid dot: "drawing".

I don't mind it, it's harder for squatters to control the name you want and if your product/service takes off eventually you just buy the quality TLDs as desired. So many people now just follow links through search, mobile apps, social media posts (etc) vs. typing them in, so having a mint TLD is becoming less important.

Recently I wanted a domain and a squatter was firm on $8k, basically just ignored the sales tactics and after some digging found the same name at an equally great TLD for ~$250.

Overall it's a win, domain squatters will start to realize they're trying to control an increasingly infinite space and those of us doing work on a budget have some leverage to not support their gouging behavior.

Re: The .ing top-level domain

#169

Post by layer8 »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #161
layer8 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every new TLD is a new opportunity for making money, and that’s why they won’t be going away anytime soon.

But making websites harder to find also costs money. "Was it 'draw.ing', 'drawi.ng', or just 'draw.com'? Screw it I'm using Powerpoint." Although I suppose making websites harder to find would increase Google searches...

It doesn’t cost money to registries and registrars, who are making the money.
Post reply on HN